已经闹了一阵子的韩寒Vs白烨的笔墨战争直到今天才去看了一眼。此事在网络媒体世界受到关注程度俨然已经成为了继馒头事件后的第二个公众大话题。
然而这两件争议都无关公众利益。但为何人们投注了这么多时间和笔墨呢？大概是没有太多可以如此肆意公开讨论的东西吧。要不小则关闭了博克或整个网站，大则丢了饭碗，当然再往大去就是进去了。今天看《华尔街日报》才知道又有人——身份是自由电影制片人，博克——消失了。
也是今天才从同事那知道，本期的《经济学人》无法在中国大陆发行。原因？看了Leader的第二段就知道了。不过这期的中国调查还是好看的。
那么多事情不能说，只要是在这个国家，不管你是中国人外国人，不中听的都封起了嘴。当然，大家只好在那些其实无关痛痒的事情上大做文章了，而且还那么愤怒。
It was announced today that John Micklethwait is becoming the 16th editor of The Economist in its history of 165 years.
THE Economist Group’s board of directors has chosen John Micklethwait as the 16th editor of The Economist, succeeding Bill Emmott on April 1st.
Before officially stepping down, Bill was interviewed, taking a look back to his 26 years career with the newspaper.
Why did you want to write for The Economist in the first place?
BE: I subscribed at school, while I was doing ‘A’ level economics—that was when I first learned about The Economist. I did economics initially because I thought it would be useful, but actually the point of economics is to tell you how people behave and what makes the world work. It’s the study of human behaviour, even if most often expressed through money. I started reading The Economist because my teacher told us that it was a good idea. The Economist is about why the world works in the way it does, what’s going to happen, and why it’s going to happen. I think that combination of economics and The Economist started my curiosity about the world, and started me thinking that being a journalist might be a good thing for me. While The Economist wasn’t the only publication I thought I might enjoy working for, it was an obvious candidate.
Has it lived up to your expectations? Where has it exceeded them? BE: It has hugely exceeded them. I’ve been writing for The Economist now for 26 years. It’sbeen an extraordinary education. Perhaps the thing I didn’t understand is how it would send me all around the world and that I would be able to learn about countries all around the world. Not just Japan and Brussels where I worked, but also all the places that I visited as finance editor and as business affairs editor, then since as editor. In a given year, I might be over in Chile, India, Italy or Australia, always learning something about the ways the politics and economy work. A fantastic education! The quality of writing and thinking has got better and better, but it’s always been of a higher standard than I could have imagined. I think we all learn from each other. I don’t think that I ever imagined, before I came to work at The Economist, how much fun it would be. I didn’t think that The Economist, from the title and the subject matter, would actually be fun. Yet as Stephen Hugh Jones wrote in the Independent on Sunday, laughter is the most commonly heard noise, especially among the editorial people. It’s been wonderful.
Who has made the greatest impression on you here? Who took you under their wing when you started?Was there any one writer whose style you consciously emulated?
BE: I think in my early days as an Economist journalist, the two most striking people were the editor and the deputy editor. The deputy editor, Norman Macrae, was strikingly bold in his writing and judgments, never scared to come up with a strong point of view about what was happening and where it was leading, or what it might mean. There was a great contrarian streak in what he wrote, and hehad a strong interest in Japan, having written quite seminal articles in The Economist as early as 1962, and then again in 1968. So I would say Norman was a very strong journalistic influence. Andrew Knight, my first editor, the man who hired me, was also a strong influence. I think what always impressed me about Andrew as an editor was the strong backing that he gave to his journalists. I remember being in Brussels and we had a complaint from an EU Commissioner about something, and Andrew backed us to the hilt, and indeed wrote a wonderful letter to the commissioner, accusing him, accurately, of not telling the truth. Just the fact that we were supported in that way was a great morale-booster. One thing about Andrew as a manager was that he cared about people and made a conscious effort to know everybody, to know their names and what they were interested in. That was, I think, very striking for me as a young journalist, who didn’t really expect to be well known by the big boss. The person who took me under their wing when I started was Dick Leonard, my bureau chief in Brussels. A former Labour MP and experienced writer, he was amazingly tolerant of this bumptious young scribbler, who had no experience either of journalism or the world outside university. Yet he was always encouraging and, most important, generously gave me the space to write and to learn, even at the expense of what he might have written himself.
What are you most proud of, during your time here?
BE: A weekly paper over 26 years—that’s 26 x 50 issues, so it’s very hard to single out any one thing that I’m most proud of. But I think the general point that I’m most proud of as editor is that the quality, authoritativeness and reliability of what we write has just gone up and upduring that time. I think The Economist has always been good but expectations among our readers have increased, as they’ve got more and more information about what’s going on in the world, particularly all around the world, and in response to that I think that we’ve both built a global network of correspondents AND maintained and even raised the quality of what they do. I think that’s the fundamental thing I’m most proud of. I could, however, list some other particular things—I’m very proud of the way we’ve achieveda high profile and a good reputation in countries other than Britain, not just as a publication in which to read about the rest of the world, but to read about their own countries. Look at the reputation we have in Italy because of all the coverage we’ve given Silvio Berlusconi and his misdemeanours—we now have a really prominent position in Italy as a respected commentator and writer about Italy. I think we have the same position in America, that we’ve become something that people want to read about America, and that’s a very important achievement of the paper. Finally, I think what’s always been important about The Economist is our willingness to take bold and sometimes unconventional positions that are in line with our liberal principles. Under my predecessor, supporting the legalisation of drugs was one. Under me, probably supporting the legal recognition of gay marriage was the big one, which symbolised the highly principled and sometimes unconventional character of The Economist. What have you got most wrong? Are there any stories that you missed covering?
BE: I don’t think there’s any area that I feel that we got consistently wrong. The thing about a weekly paper is that you may make a mistake in one issue, but then you can write about it again in the next issue. I think that we were quite slow to support outside intervention in the Balkan wars and that was probably a mistake. We should have been more aggressive about the need for the west to intervene sooner. Similarly, many of our readers think that, for Iraq, we were too enthusiastic to have outside intervention there. I still think that ours was the rightposition to take. We may have been a little impatient about the timing of the invasion, but I think it was definitely the right position, based on what we knew at the time. What makes The Economist different?
BE: Firstly, we are very international. Secondly, the very clear and consistent analytical approach that we take. We’re not just reporters, we’ re not trying to reproduce what other people think. We’re trying to say, in a clear and concise manner, what we think is happening and where it’s leading. That makes The Economist quite different from other publications, because we really expect the journalists to come up with a point of view, and to express it clearly. This has the benefit of making us different, but it also makes us quite an efficient read for people who are busy. They know exactly what they’re getting from The Economist, it’s very clear what our point of view is, and our articles are relatively short. We don’t confuse people with a lot of blather, quotes and so forth from outsiders. Vanity Fair famously described you as “sphinxlike”. How do you feel about that?
BE: Well, the sphinx still exists in Egypt, all those centuries later, so I think it’s a compliment—certainly in terms of endurance! It might mean that my nose falls off, though!
Outsiders see The Economist as being a very traditional place —it’s been compared to an Oxbridge common room. Is this fair? How have we managed to combine tradition with financial success?
BE: Well, I don’t think we are traditional, really. I think that we’re irreverent; I think that we have unconventional positions, such as on gay marriage, or drug legalisation. I put an obscene gesture on the cover, as a cactus, and we had camels copulating—how is this a traditional publication? I think that this is a misconception among people who don’t read us. People who do read us do not think we are traditional. That, I believe, explains the fact that we’ve got quite a young readership. Our average age of readers in America is 38, which isfive to ten years younger than those of our competitors. We have traditional values of quality and accuracy with a strong emphasis on reliability. Perhaps you could call that traditional—I call it good. It [the “traditional” label] is just wrong! The Monday editorial meetings have assumed almost legendary status. How would you describe them to those of us not involved? What’s special about them?
BE: I think laughter is what’s special about them. They’re very amusing occasions. People dohave a spirit of trying to make light of serious subjects, for one thing, and that gives them a real sense of cohesion, of “all in it together”. Secondly, I think that they’re very open, in the sense of people being willing to say what they think, for what’s very important about The Economist editorial team is that people should be able to say what they believe—such as whether they think the position I’m taking is stupid or just wrong. Or the position that somebody else is taking. They should be able to challenge each other and have the feeling, definitely, that their view is listened to. And I think that they do have that feeling, and that gives the meeting a special characteristic, because it’s such anopen discussion. The thing about journalists is that they are anarchists. Anarchy does need somebody to act as chairman, so the editor’s role is to bring a bit of discipline, both to the meeting and to the publication. The editorial meeting on Monday is an assembly of anarchists able to say anything they want, laugh about what they want, but in the end with a purpose that’s providedby the editor and by the weekly publication. The Economist Group is of course about more than the newspaper—what do you see as its other strengths?
BE: I think that its other strengths are in high quality publishing. I’m very proud that CFO has got a global brand, because it’s got very high quality editors and very good products. I think that the Economist Intelligence Unit, where of I course I spent almost nine months n 1992, as editorial director, has consistently increased its reputation as a really high-quality publisher of business information, and I think Roll Call and European Voice have done the same in their markets. What’s great about The Economist Group is that it is able to own and develop other high-quality brands, and I hope that in the future it will have a lot more. What will you miss most?
BE: It has to be the people. I think anywhere you work for any length of time, it’s a little bit like a family—rather like growing up with your brother and sister. You spend a lot of time with each other, and suddenly being away from “my family” will be very sad. I’ll miss that. So it’ll be the people and the laughter. How do you expect to feel when you leave the Tower on your last day as a member of the Group?
BE: I think I’ll feel choked. I’ll feel really strange, I really will. Do you have a message for your successor?
BE: Have fun! John
花20元买创刊号的中文版《滚石》完全是因为看了按摩乳的文章。拿回办公室给Steven看，他立即决定订阅全年的刊物，尽管他读不了太多中文，即便能读懂一点的话。这完全验证了按摩乳说的贴上RollingStone的标签就会完全不同的判断。当然这也验证了这块招牌在英语世界的号召力。
大学刚毕业那会还上网看看《滚石》的网络版，当时还没有完全从《音乐天堂》和《音像世界》（老家至今还存有几册）的阅读习惯中出来，对美国仍然憧憬不已。可以说这种憧憬也有音乐的影响——虽然完全是业余的听。
第一读到《滚石》居然是中文版的。这时候才知道《滚石》不是纯粹的音乐或娱乐杂志。由于摇滚乐天生的社会阐释性，这本杂志就自然延伸到了社会，政治和文化多领域话题。看得出中文版的第一期在努力延续这点，因此它从外表到内容都不是一份满大街受港台娱乐八褂杂志影响的娱乐杂志。
他显然以音乐和文化杂志自居。
他到底能滚多远呢？！很多人都在问。在一个没有摇滚文化，甚至流行音乐文化腐朽如是的中国，他能以音乐为名，在文化阐释上走多远呢。
那些翻译自原版的文章能吸引多少人呢。除了熟悉的U2 and Bono，我对其他人的名字十分陌生。更何况我在文化上变得越来越反西方。那么这些用中文字皮肉携载的西方（主要是美国）文化和他们的态度/价值观能在多大程度上吸引80年代后的中国后生们呢。
看完了杂志，翻起前阵买的鲍伯迪伦的自传《像一快滚石》。我只觉得枯燥，迪伦也许的确如评论所说的是位卓越的英文散文家和诗人，但中译本让我完全无从感受这点。他生活的那个世界实在距离我太远，我们没有文化上的共鸣。
不好意思，迪伦，就像你可能永远理解北岛或海子一样，我无法欣赏你的自传。
那么，除了对〈滚石〉这快招牌的崇敬之外，中国的读者真能欣赏它么。
“珍惜生命，远离博克”，这是著名的博克按摩乳给自己的副标题。机智，诙谐，在愤怒中一针见血，在调侃中掩饰愤怒，带三个表（源自“三个代表”）每天制造１００多万的点击流量，吸引了众多非常喜欢他和非常讨厌他的人。
今天，他的读者真的远离了这个博克。这家博克服务供应商关闭了按摩乳，诚恳宣告“由于众所周知的不可抗拒之原因，本博客暂时关闭”。
这是继Blog-city，blogneo.com和微软MSN关闭中国博克之后的最不可司臆的案例，除了带三个表的暗讽，按摩乳的旗号乃是娱乐至死——当然也娱乐一些高尚者。殊途同归。
